Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the result is empty when nobody has reported the scan. Beyond that it does not describe rate limits, auth needs, or aggregation behavior, keeping it at a 3.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three compact sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The trailing scan_id clarification is slightly out of order (it belongs with the parameter discussion) but the overall size is appropriate for a two-parameter read tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the annotations cover the safety profile, so the description only needs to cover params and edge cases. It handles the empty-result edge case and scan_id format but leaves report_type values ambiguous, a minor but real gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It clarifies scan_id as the UUID of a ScanMalware scan and says report_type 'filters by kind', but with no enum and no concrete values for report_type, the agent still cannot know what kinds are valid, so compensation is only partial.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clear specific verb ('List') and resource ('user reports and votes filed about one scan'), with helpful elaboration of what a report is (marked safe or malicious) and the returned total count. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the natural sibling submit_scan_report or the other per-scan getters, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer it should call this to see reports on a given scan, and the 'Empty when nobody has reported the scan' note hints at expected results. No alternative tools are named and no when-not guidance is given, so this is minimum-viable rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.